FWIW, (since it appears that the citation of highly credible experts and scholars of the field are not appreciated by all on this thread), most recently Jacquelyn Williamson, of the Amarna Project, who worked directly on the so called Sunshade of Nefertiti feels strongly that Nefertiti is, indeed, associated with Hathor in her role as sexuality incarnate, as a creator goddess responsible for the rebirth of the sun in the morning.

At one of her resent lectures I attended at Harvard she discussed Nefertiti's association with Hathor, Maata, and even Isis as the protector goddes and sexual identity of the new spirituality of Akhenaton's religious ideology.

It would seem that Akhenaton was very willing to reuse and associate the spiritual and religious identity of Egypt's most potent goddesses at the time in order to establish the cult of pharaoh and his family as the spiritual pinnacle of the nation. Whether this was for religious or purely political reasons is debatable. And he was certainly not the only pharaoh to do so.

FWIW, (since it appears that the citation of highly credible experts and scholars of the field are not appreciated by all on this thread), most recently Jacquelyn Williamson, of the Amarna Project, who worked directly on the so called Sunshade of Nefertiti feels strongly that Nefertiti is, indeed, associated with Hathor in her role as sexuality incarnate, as a creator goddess responsible for the rebirth of the sun in the morning.

At one of her resent lectures I attended at Harvard she discussed Nefertiti's association with Hathor, Maata, and even Isis as the protector goddes and sexual identity of the new spirituality of Akhenaton's religious ideology.

I didn't quite receive that impression from the sources you, yourself, supplied. For example, Williamson was quoted as saying Nefertiti had "replaced" Isis as a protector goddess. For me, "replaced" is a far cry from "represents".

Quote:

It would seem that Akhenaton was very willing to reuse and associate the spiritual and religious identity of Egypt's most potent goddesses at the time in order to establish the cult of pharaoh and his family as the spiritual pinnacle of the nation.

Among the portraits of Nefertiti, the instances when she is shown wearing what is called the "Hathoric" headdress are very few in comparison with the others. However, I can certainly see why the Hathoric emblems would not have been scorned by the religion of Akhenaten. The queenly headdress is dominated by the disc of the sun and Hathor was always associated with Ra. In fact, their relationship appears rather complicated in the mythology, she being at times his mother, his daughter, or his wife. But that does not mean that Nefertiti was considered to be Hathor in human form. Instead, Tefnut, another sun goddess was chosen, one who was not represented in human form as Hathor had traditionally been. I missed anything about Nefertiti being associated with the goddess, Maat. This last represented Truth and even though Akhenaten styled himself as "anx[w] m mAat" or "living in truth"--truth was always written phonetically and the form of the goddess was not substituted.

"... Interestingly, comes at the same time as the horns on the queens crown also the horned uraeus in iconography . Tiye is the first king consort, thus shown on the forehead. Already at the beginning of the 18th Dynasty, he comes as a frieze element in front of the temple depictions, private tombs, and as part of royal crowns (Atefcrown). In Deir el-Bahari just the scenes from the Hathor sanctuary are framed with horned uraei. In TT 192 Hathor itself carries this uraeus, while in another scene in the same grave Tiye first order occurs, so that one can take a direct correlation of uraeus, goddess and queen. Wente has seen the strong relation of the Sed-fest to Hathor and proposed to see in the corresponding scenes in TT 192 a "sacred marriage" between the king and the goddess. A takeover of the horns and the horned uraeus by the Queen just in this context can naturally think with to the identification of Tiye with the Goddess, as well as in the temple of Sedeinga in Nubia. As remarkable must be seen the "survival" of this "Hathor element" in the monotheistic Amarna Period. Nefertiti can be represented as well as with the horned uraeus with the double feather crown type C. It is believed that Hathor's solar aspect was strong enough, due to her close connection to Ra, to avoid being banned at this time. The iconography associated with it made it Nefertiti possible to be the female part in the Aton worship. Only in the course of time, after the move to the new capital Akhetaten, it is a completely new crown shape (their famous "Blue Crown"), which almost completely replaced the old in their presentations.
Another connection between the kings women and Hathor could be the gazelle motif. ..."

Just thought I would say that in his new book, "Amarna Sunrise", Aidan Dodson still maintains that this unknown prince is Webensenu. From what I have read, it seems nobody actually puts forward the idea that this mummy is actually Crown Prince Thutmose from any evidence other than circumstantial, in that he is a prince buried in the tomb of Amunhotep II and that one canopic jar and four shabti for Prince Webensebu were found in KV35. I think that had this mummy been found in any other part of the tomb and not between the elder and younger lady in a chamber all to themselves, then it would be perfectly reasonable to assume this was in fact Webensenu. I would argue, and I think not alone, that his being found between the two females indicates he is a close relative of them, be that son, nephew or cousin, only the seemingly "top secret" DNA results will tell. Yet despite the DNA results, which Dodson is extremely skeptical about, and I agree that he does raise issues on this that need answering, he still maintains that all three mummies in KV35 Jc are wives and a son of Amunhotep II. Unless the DNA results can be overturned, then I still go with the view that they are Queen Tiye, the mother of Tutankhamun and a prince whose name and parentage are as yet completely missing from the historical record. If, when the DNA results are eventually released, it is shown that this prince is a son of Queen Tiye, then I would still argue against him being Crown Prince Thutmose on the basis of being too young.

It's entirely possible that Crown Prince Tuthmose was young when he died; all we know is that he does not seem to be present by Year 30. The existing monuments of his do not show an adult (to my knowledge).

Even if the mummy is proven to be a son of Tiye though, we can never be sure who he was because there are the names of other princes out there in the archaeological record, that to date can't be placed exactly.

Yep, I read those books, and more, and various papers about this subject, and I have read nothing to explain why he wears a wig in these depictions of him. The sidelock is not that of youth, but is part of the regalia of him being High Priest of Ptah. I have never seen any account that a wig of any description is a necessary part of any religious or other state function, simply that wearing a wig was customary, but not obligatory, for adult Egyptians, and if I am wrong them I am sure this will be pointed out. But if he is not an adult, then why is he shown wearing a wig. I don't propose that he was necessary fully grown, in his twenties for instance, but these depictions do show, IMO, a person seen in AE eyes as an adult, and the mummy of the prince in KV35 is not an adult by physiology or custom of the times, therefore, IMO, cannot be Crown Prince Thutmose. I suspect that we will never know his name.

On the non publication of his DNA testing I have three ideas. Either they simply made an error and forgot to include him when SCA published the results, which seems unlikely. Or that they were unable to extract any usable DNA, in which case why not say so. Or his results showed no relationship to any of the other mummies tested and SCA simply discarded him as having any importance. This also seems unlikely as it would rule him out as even being Webensenu, yet despite the disfigurations of death and mummification, he looks very typical for a Thutmosid.

Best mention also that Crown Prince Thutmose is mentioned in a Memphite context and that all his few funerary objects, including that of his cat, were found in the Memphis area, not Thebes, thus indicating a burial probably at Saqarra. If so, I do realise it does not preclude his mummy being taken down to Thebes at a later date for whatever reason, but the remaining evidence for him shows a person seen as the Egyptians as an adult and buried at Saqarra. Here I agree with Dodson to an extent about the three KV35 mummies in that the prince is only seen as possibly being Crown Prince Thutmose because he was placed alongside the mummy, which was seen even long before the DNA testing, as Queen Tiye. There is not one shred of evidence, barring what his DNA may eventually show, that he is her son and therefore Thutmose.

Still, curious the mortal injuries to Tutankhamun's mother and this as yet unknown prince having serious injuries internal injuries, and possibly unusual treatment of his body as discussed further up this thread. Something dramatic, tragic and bad was going on for sure, but what....

Thanks Ikon, I agree, based on that evidence you'd expect any mummy of Tuthmose to be of a person in their teens at the very least (an adult in Ancient Egyptian terms), not the child (estimated to be 8 to 10 years old) in KV35.

I do think he looks a lot like KV35EL (Tiye) and Thuya in particular, so I'd be inclined to guess he's an unknown prince of Amenhotep III rather than a brother of Tutankhamun (child of KV35YL).

I hope that someone thought to examine that extra arm that was found with these mummies too, as it may indicate a 4th body was present with them at some time.

And not just the spare arm, also the two detached heads, if they still exist. This is were Dodson makes some valid points in his new book about issues with the DNA testing. For instance that no mummies known not to be connected to the late 18th dynasty royality, and known to have lived before and after that period, were tested as a control group. This is a serious error and can only bring some doubt on the results, or on the basic who is related to who results so far released. I wouldn't want to steal Dodson's thunder on a book many here are still reading, or yet to purchase, so will direct attention to appendix 4 of "Amarna Sunrise", which I am sure will generate a number of posts, and even hot air, when sufficient people have finished reading the book

Thutmose, eldest son of Amenhotep III and Tiye, must have been adult when he died. This is very clear from the nature and significance of his titles. He was not only the First Prophet of Ptah in Memphis, he was also head of all priests of Egypt. Especially the last-mentioned title could not have been only formally. This title was for sure associated with power, influence and important tasks in the state. He was too important only to be formally awarded to a child, incapable of action (as in my view also the title of the First Prophet of Ptah).

It is also biologically possible for Crown Prince Thutmose to have been as old as 27 years at death if he died at about year 30 of Amunhotep III, and if he had been first born, though of course we don't know the order in which his children were born, or when.

BTW, I just want to shoehorn this fact in here. This unknown prince is often described as having extreme brachycephaly (short headedness). I have seen it written that he has a greater degree of brachycephalism than Tutankhamun and is borderline in having "Big head syndrome". On the basis of Smith's measurements of his skull, length 182 mm and width 147 mm, his cephalic index can be calculated to be 80.769. Tutankhamun has an index of 83.9 and KV55 skull is 81. Average (mesaticephalic) cephalic index for males is 76 to 81. So it can be seen that it is Tutankhamun who has a "big head", while his father and the KV35 prince are just in the mesaticephalic range. I thought to put this here as I've seen so much about head shapes and incorrect use of the term dolichocephalic, (long headedness) being used for Thutmosids, particulary Tutankhamun, when in fact they were generally at the opposite end of the scale. I think people look at the profile of a skull without hair or muscle tissue at the neck and see this long skull and confuse it with dolichocephalism without regard to it being the width of the skull in relation to it's length that gives the cephalic index, not that it "looks long". The distortions of Amarna art don't do much to help with this confusion either and are used by mischevious people to imply head binding or "aliens", Oi!....

Calculations are my own, so if any error it is my fault, and I don't imply that all publications confuse dolichocephalic with brachycephalic, but some do, and documentaries.

Thutmose, eldest son of Amenhotep III and Tiye, must have been adult when he died. This is very clear from the nature and significance of his titles. He was not only the First Prophet of Ptah in Memphis, he was also head of all priests of Egypt. Especially the last-mentioned title could not have been only formally. This title was for sure associated with power, influence and important tasks in the state. He was too important only to be formally awarded to a child, incapable of action (as in my view also the title of the First Prophet of Ptah).

I would agree, also since the whip of CP Thutmose was found in KV 62 (Tutankhamun), being Carter No. 333, which was labelled as "son of the king, Thutmose" with the title of "Captain of the troops." Again, this does not argue for a child with such a title, no matter how royal, as even the most junior officer would have had to be well-beyond the age of puberty, as Cruz-Uribe's 1978 study of the father of Ramses I shows that the young Ramses (later Ramses I) was working in the stables most likely in his 20's.

Reeves (1990) refers to the inclusion of this item as part of the "heirloom" items in Tutankhamun's tomb, being items of his family line, included in his tomb since Tutankhamun was the last of the Thutmosid line of kings.

Good, seems I make some progress in my arguments, in more than one thread and more than one forum, for more than a year now, that Prince Thutmose was an adult, and that the KV35 prince is not an adult and, due to the condition of his mummy, not seen as an adult and so cannot be Prince Thutmose.

There is a reason I have banged on about this, and it is that if he were Webensenu, then apart from him being an extremely rare surviving example of a prince, he is of no great interest at all. If he was CP Thutmose, then he becomes only slightly more interesting in that if he had lived, then history would have turned out differently and possibly no Amarna period, or maybe something similar in a way, but that is another argument. If he turns out to be a son of Queen Tiye now missing from the historical record, then we just shrug and say effectively "meh". However, IF he turns out to be a son of KV35YL and so an unsuspected brother of Tutankhamun, then he becomes of interest, not least to authors and documentary makers who so far totaly ignore him or relegate him to a very brief footnote as being Webensenu or maybe CP Thutmose. IF he is a brother to Tutankhamun, then all manner of arguments unfold and another chapter in the convoluted Amarna story opens. For instance, and I simply let imagination loose here and make no sworn statement, his injuries and those of his prospective mother need looking at much more carefully, for if they are mother and son, and both have met an end with some violence, whether by accident or design, and design looks the more likely at least in the case of the "mother", it opens rather a can of worms as to what was going on. Plenty to make a good film about, better than some fantasy about "Moses" in "Mordor" again....